Indeed, earlier this month she said in a legislative update that legislators should have the courage to vote for raising the wages of Minnesota's lowest paid workers:

I appreciate the many contacts I have received regarding the minimum wage debate at the Legislature. I am becoming more comfortable supporting a higher wage than that which the Senate passed last year, but I will not vote for a bill that includes inflationary increases. Legislators should be willing to do the right thing consciously and vote for increases when they are appropriate. I sincerely hope that the conferees recognize that compromise is what will result in success, not steely insistence that only one side of an issue can be “right.”

Such prudence. But Bluestem's memory began to nag us, and when we woke this morning, we remembered an innocent time when Senator Rest voted for automatic pay hikes for a certain class of low-paid workers.

Pay raises for Minnesota lawmakers won approval Tuesday from the state Senate, but the plan to boost salaries of the governor, Legislature, agency commissioners and other elected officials faces a taller climb in the state House.

Five Democrats from swing districts joined all Republicans in voting against the bigger state agency finance bill that includes the raises. No one attempted to strip out the proposed raises and there was no debate about its inclusion in a budget bill that narrowly passed 34-32.

Minnesota hasn’t increased pay for elected officials since the late 1990s. The governor makes $120,000 and legislators earn $31,000. Under the plan, the governor would see two 3 percent raises, and legislators would earn one third of the governor’s salary going forward. That would result in a nearly $10,000 raise in 2015 and another bump the next year. After that, raises would be automatic because the governor would receive inflationary increases annually.

The news report noted that "House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, has said House leaders don’t consider lawmaker pay a priority and aren’t eager to act on it."

But Tom Bakk felt his colleagues' pain:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said his caucus contemplated removing the pay raises but decided to move ahead. He argues that the stagnant pay has made holding office less attractive and could eventually lead to a Legislature where only retirees or those with personal wealth can serve.

“It’s a tough vote. It’s never easy to take a vote to raise your own pay,” Bakk said.

Apparently easier than increasing the wages of the lowest-paid Minnesotans. Not we don't fault those who voted for a pay hike (Minnesota legislators are low paid) and who are willing to pass an indexed minimum wage. There's no double-standard there.

Nor is there one for the DFLers who voted no to raising and increasing their own wages (although most of last year's no votes are either willing to index or undeclared on how they'll vote. Last year's naysayers are: The five Democrats who voted against the bill were: Greg Clausen of Apple Valley, Kevin Dahle of Northfield, John Hoffman of Champlin, Vicki Jensen of Owatonna and Susan Kent of Woodbury.)

But Rest? Apparently so. And Bakk? He'll take the limelight at an opening day rally, but not push for the same type of deal he's willing to give himself.

A state government omnibus finance bill containing a pay increase for legislators squeaked by the state Senate on Tuesday afternoon. The bill passed 34-32, with five DFLers and all Republicans voting against the bill in a roll-call vote that lasted several minutes. . . .

The House doesn’t face the same political calendar as the Senate, however. They will stand for election in November 2014. Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, got a dig in at the Senate following the vote when he tweeted: “So the senate officially voted to raise its own pay before voting to raise the minimum wage. ‘Leadership.’”

The pay increase wasn’t the subject of debate on the floor, and no DFL senators stood to tell their colleagues they would dissent. But Bakk recessed during the session and pulled his caucus into a 45-minute closed-door meeting to discuss the pay issue. Final passage was an intriguing couple of minutes in which the bill appeared to be at risk of failing.